HHR Sherman

[Comassion]

Today we discuss the standard US tank - the basic Sherman. Getting this unit all set and cost correctly will provide a good base for costing other armor.

M4A1 Sherman - 1942
21 Pts
Spd 4
Def 5 / 4
AI: 9 / 9 / 7
AV: 13 / 11 / 9

Sherman Statistics (http://www.onwar.com/tanks/usa/fm4a1.htm)

Firstly, are these the appropriate historical stats? Is the main gun currently too powerful? Are the defense values correct?

Go!

[dracos42]

I don't see any problem with the Sherman M4/75. My thoughts are to make the basic Mk IV near the same cost of the M4/75. And perhaps the T-34/76 also? How about making the three tanks the base tanks - the big three workhorse tanks for most of the war? My apologies to the British, they should have a tank with those three, but I've never been able to figure out the British tank family of WW-II.

Michael

[Bobsalt]

I don't have an issue with any of the stats of the Sherman - it's the cost that I think is the problem. Right now, with the Sherman at 21 and the Pz IVG at 30, the Pz IVG is 30% more expensive for 1 less rear armor, extended range, +1 on AV values, and -2/-2/-1 against infantry. I think it's probably a combination of the Sherman too cheap and the Pz IVG too high than one or the other being off. I'd guess the Sherman at 24 and the Pz IVG at 26 or 27.

[Comassion]

Okay, quick vote: Keep Sherman stats as is, but adjust cost upward. Sound good?

[Bobsalt]

Okay, quick vote: Keep Sherman stats as is, but adjust cost upward. Sound good?

To me, yes - I haven't heard anyone complaining about the stats for this on the boards - just the cost.

[Domhnall101]

I don't have an issue with any of the stats of the Sherman - it's the cost that I think is the problem. Right now, with the Sherman at 21 and the Pz IVG at 30, the Pz IVG is 30% more expensive for 1 less rear armor, extended range, +1 on AV values, and -2/-2/-1 against infantry. I think it's probably a combination of the Sherman too cheap and the Pz IVG too high than one or the other being off. I'd guess the Sherman at 24 and the Pz IVG at 26 or 27.

I like this evaluation
Cost needs to change

[Comassion]

Okay, vote passes - and now the question is, how much?

[PatrickWR]

That's my vote as well. Stats are fine, cost should go up. I suggest 23, and then drop the Panzer IVG to 26 when we get there.

[Joisey]

I vote to keep stats too, for the record. I believe both the Sherman and Panzer IV G should be 25. That still lets you have a four sherman rush if you want to play that way, but expect to go up against 4 panzers when you do.

I don't want to change the cost of the T-34. It has the transport SA that these two don't.

[RaidingParty]

Panzers get +2 AV over Shermans at all ranges, which is especially powerful at long range (11 dice vs 9 dice on 5 defense). To balance in a standard 100-point game, I still think a 4 Sherman vs. 3 Panzer ratio is fair. So, the Sherman shouldn't be over 25 points and the Panzer shouldn't be under 26.

[PatrickWR]

Panzers get +2 AV over Shermans at all ranges, which is especially powerful at long range (11 dice vs 9 dice on 5 defense). To balance in a standard 100-point game, I still think a 4 Sherman vs. 3 Panzer ratio is fair. So, the Sherman shouldn't be over 25 points and the Panzer shouldn't be under 26.

This is how I see it too.

[Comassion]

We have yet to see the full implications of our setup rules, but I think extended range will get more play and will help to balance out the Sherman. I like Patrick's minor adjustment of 23-point Shermans.

[cossackwarrior]

The comparison of tank-to-tank is fine, but one also has to consider that the USA could simply pour out these tanks with little difficulty while the Germans had increasing difficulty and the wide array of different tanks made this even more difficult. As much as one likes otherwise, the Sherman was available in huge numbers compared to even the Panzer III and IV and this must be accounted for in any game of WWII.

[Bobsalt]

The comparison of tank-to-tank is fine, but one also has to consider that the USA could simply pour out these tanks with little difficulty while the Germans had increasing difficulty and the wide array of different tanks made this even more difficult. As much as one likes otherwise, the Sherman was available in huge numbers compared to even the Panzer III and IV and this must be accounted for in any game of WWII.

I totally disagree. This is a tactical level game, and as such, we should only be concerned with the statistics of each given unit that are directly related to effectiveness in combat - we should not consider economic and production factors. If we did, and a Sherman is correct at 21 points, then a Tiger should cost at least several hundred. In a seven-minute firefight, the cost of a particular unit is irrelevant. The fact that you have many more Shermans than the Germans do Tigers loses its relevance when the particular map grid you’ve been told to take happens to contain one of those Tigers. If this were a strategic level game, then perhaps you’d have an argument, but in a game that is concerned only with tactics, the fact that Shermans were more readily available is totally outside the scope of the game.

[Comassion]

You don't want to take availability into account when determining a unit's cost for a point-based tactical game.

The only reason units even have point values is so that, ideally, forces built out of equivalent points have an even chance of victory. Thus, the only factor determining point value is it's tactical worth on the battlefield. Factors like cost of production, availability, mechanical reliability, and ease of transport may be good real life factors with which to judge a tank's worth, but all our little tactical game is concerned with are basic unit stats like speed, armor, and weapon stats, and how much the combination thereof is worth compared to given values for other units.

When one builds historical scenarios or campaigns, the general availability of a given unit can be taken into account. Beyond that, for historical scenarios one would do well to research the actual composition of the units invovled in a particular battle. But for these constructed-army meeting engagements, none of that matters.

[Domhnall101]

The comparison of tank-to-tank is fine, but one also has to consider that the USA could simply pour out these tanks with little difficulty while the Germans had increasing difficulty and the wide array of different tanks made this even more difficult. As much as one likes otherwise, the Sherman was available in huge numbers compared to even the Panzer III and IV and this must be accounted for in any game of WWII.

I don't feel that putting restrictions on this game like that is appropriate. While it is true that the US had a bigger production capacity we are playing at a tactical level and tank v tank is how we should be costing stuff.
Scenarios is reallly the area where this unit count control should be implimented.

the other solution is army lists and that is over working it.

[Joisey]

You don't want to take availability into account when determining a unit's cost for a point-based tactical game.

The only reason units even have point values is so that, ideally, forces built out of equivalent points have an even chance of victory. Thus, the only factor determining point value is it's tactical worth on the battlefield. Factors like cost of production, availability, mechanical reliability, and ease of transport may be good real life factors with which to judge a tank's worth, but all our little tactical game is concerned with are basic unit stats like speed, armor, and weapon stats, and how much the combination thereof is worth compared to given values for other units.

When one builds historical scenarios or campaigns, the general availability of a given unit can be taken into account. Beyond that, for historical scenarios one would do well to research the actual composition of the units invovled in a particular battle. But for these constructed-army meeting engagements, none of that matters.
I agree with this.

[RaidingParty]

I agree that the Sherman should be about 23 points, but that's it. Personally, I don't see the Shermans-Panzer divide as that great.

I don't think that the Allies and Axis should be exactly matched tank-for-tank. Instead, I would think that at the basic squad level (tanks + infantry), there would be a balance. The Shermans should not be balanced by Panzers. The Allies' advantage in Shermans should be balanced by the Axis advantage in SS-Pzgrs. The difference in advantage means a fundamental difference in strategy and makes for a more interesting game.

If you want a perfectly balanced game, play Allies-vs-Allies, or Axis-vs-Axis.

[Comassion]

Okay, vote time:

23-point Shermans, yay or nay?

[Bobsalt]

I don't think that the Allies and Axis should be exactly matched tank-for-tank.

I don't think anyone is suggesting this; but rather that the differences in costs need to be appropriate for the differences in capabilities.

Assuming we're going to adjust the Pz IVG downward, I can live with a 23 point Sherman. If the Pz IV is more than 27, then I think it's still too low. If the Pz IVG comes up to about 26, then I'd say 23 for the Sherman is about right.

[Comassion]

I like 26 points for a Panzer IV. We'll discuss that next.

[Domhnall101]

I like 26 points for a Panzer IV. We'll discuss that next.
ditto. on to pviv

[PatrickWR]

Vote yes on the 23-point Sherman.

Are we doing anything with the Rhino?

[Bobsalt]

I'll go with 23 for the Sherman. I'm assuming this will also bump up the Rhino?

[Comassion]

The Rhino will undoubtedly be under review at some point.

[fifleche]

Panzers get +2 AV over Shermans at all ranges, which is especially powerful at long range (11 dice vs 9 dice on 5 defense). To balance in a standard 100-point game, I still think a 4 Sherman vs. 3 Panzer ratio is fair. So, the Sherman shouldn't be over 25 points and the Panzer shouldn't be under 26.Do not forget that the Sherman is 33% faster than the PzIV. With the map configurations we have, the PzIV's MAY get an extended range attack, but the Shermans WILL get to them quick.

Also, I personally consider it a HUGE difference between 7 & 9 dices against infantry, while at 13 vs 15 dices vs armor, the difference is negligeable, especially since the quicker Shermans will quickly close the range and the maps are cluttered with cover...

I don't get to vote, but my opinion is this: the PzIV has a bad combination: 3 rear defense with a relatively slow speed of 3... Those german MBT may be successfully engaged & destroyed by light tanks! Try taking 6 stuarts VS 3 PzIV's and see what I mean... Thus PzIV should cost the same as the Sherman.

['panzer' Mayer]

I read some where that the sherman was easy to catch fire too.

[Danyel Phelps]

The problem with the Sherman catching fire was no greater than any other tank.

[GijoeNumberOne]

The problem with the Sherman catching fire was no greater than any other tank.
Correction:
"The M4 earned nicknames like "Ronson" because the ammunition in early models had a tendency to catch fire when the tank was hit. (Ronson manufactured cigarette lighters with the advertising slogan, "Lights the first time.") The Germans called them "Tommy Cookers" -- a reference to a small field stove. Appliqué armor was added to the sides of the upper hull in an effort to protect ammunition stowage areas. Spare track pieces were frequently welded to hulls and turrets or sandbags added to help protect against German hollow charge weapons. Wet stowage for ammunition was added in an attempt to combat fires. Thirty-eight gallons of water mixed with antifreeze and an anti-corrosion product called "ammudamp" was needed for 100 shells. The suffix 'W' indicated this modification, as in M4A3(75)W. "
See also:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/article/ah20050729b
http://www.battlefront.co.nz/Article.asp?ArticleID=265
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/tanks_medium/m4_sherman.html

[Danyel Phelps]

Correction:
"The M4 earned nicknames like "Ronson" because the ammunition in early models had a tendency to catch fire when the tank was hit. (Ronson manufactured cigarette lighters with the advertising slogan, "Lights the first time.") The Germans called them "Tommy Cookers" -- a reference to a small field stove. Appliqué armor was added to the sides of the upper hull in an effort to protect ammunition stowage areas. Spare track pieces were frequently welded to hulls and turrets or sandbags added to help protect against German hollow charge weapons. Wet stowage for ammunition was added in an attempt to combat fires. Thirty-eight gallons of water mixed with antifreeze and an anti-corrosion product called "ammudamp" was needed for 100 shells. The suffix 'W' indicated this modification, as in M4A3(75)W. "
See also:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/article/ah20050729b
http://www.battlefront.co.nz/Article.asp?ArticleID=265
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/tanks_medium/m4_sherman.html
Correction: Any tank will catch fire if the ammunition bins are stricken, not just the Sherman. I have many photos of burned out Panzers, T-34s, and tanks from any other nation. This was not a problem isolated to American vehicles. The reason why the Sherman earned the nasty nicknames is because it happened to be the primary vehicle for almost any role on the Western front. In Dmitri Loza's book, "Commanding the Red Army's Sherman tanks," he cites several instances where the Sherman's actual "resistance" to blowing up saved him and his comrade's life.

[GijoeNumberOne]

Correction: Any tank will catch fire if the ammunition bins are stricken, not just the Sherman. I have many photos of burned out Panzers, T-34s, and tanks from any other nation. This was not a problem isolated to American vehicles. The reason why the Sherman earned the nasty nicknames is because it happened to be the primary vehicle for almost any role on the Western front. In Dmitri Loza's book, "Commanding the Red Army's Sherman tanks," he cites several instances where the Sherman's actual "resistance" to blowing up saved him and his comrade's life.
Correction 2: The M4A1 was poorly designed and DID have a tendency to flame up. In your reference, what model did Dmitri Loza use? If it was the the modified M4A2 or one of the diesel versions, then yes, they were safer.
http://www.gearboxsoftware.com/index.php?p=gearblogs&entry=11
I'm ready with more references.

[Danyel Phelps]

Correction 2: The M4A1 was poorly designed and DID have a tendency to flame up. In your reference, what model did Dmitri Loza use? If it was the the modified M4A2 or one of the diesel versions, then yes, they were safer.
http://www.gearboxsoftware.com/index.php?p=gearblogs&entry=11
I'm ready with more references.
You DO realize that your posting internet sources with no source of their own. Even more, your sources are from a video game company who produces games where Panzer IVD's prowl around NW Europe in 1944.

The M4A1 had the tendancy to brew up because it's armor was of sub-sub-par quality (Cast vs. RHA) and could be penetrated by almost anything. I say again: Any tank with the ammunition exposed to fire will brew up. It was not isolated to American vehicles as you claim. As for the M4A2 being safer, it was not. People who subscribe to that beliefe think that the deisel engine of the M4A2 made it burn-proof need to realize that any engine that gets a shell through it will explode. Any engine exposed to fire will explode. It doesn't matter if Deisel fuel ignition temperature is a little higher, the chances of running into a situation where that little safety zone will come into play are null. Loza states that through war-time research, the Sherman was less likely to brew up than the T-34 because of higher quality explosive fuses which, being produced in America, would also be in American Sherman tanks.

But to lend some respects to your source, it does appear to be an interview with someone who actualy knew what was going on in normandy at the time (unlike the author of Death Traps, who spends the entire book bumping around in his Jeep and ranting about how America sucks and everything bad happens to him.) However, he is of the oppinion that the Pershing should have been shipped early. Unfortunatly, we now know that the Pershing was not prepared by Normandy. All we had was an unfinished test model that was even more unreliable than the final product.

In the end, though, we were able to maintain a 1.3-1 kill ratio (granted, in the German's favor) in the campaign in NW europe. The situation was not as absolutely hopeless as some American veterans make it seem. We were on the attack and the Germans were on the defensive. Losses are to be expected.

[Joisey]

I have to admit that I too would be in favor of changing the Sherman to have the same SA as the Carro Armato. I was talking with a vetran of the 3rd Armor Division last week (which I plan to write an article about, btw) who also confirmed the "Ronson" adage.

My understanding is that the Sherman had the fire vulnerability because it had a gasoline engine, and not a diesel as most tanks of the era used. Gasoline was much more flammable than diesel fuel and made the Shermans much more likely to ignite.

We need to decide this issue first before we agree on recosting the Sherman, as this would effect that decision. On the subject of the Rhino, I'm forecasting the most extensive rewrite surgery of any unit to date, HA! ;)

[Danyel Phelps]

My understanding is that the Sherman had the fire vulnerability because it had a gasoline engine, and not a diesel as most tanks of the era used. Gasoline was much more flammable than diesel fuel and made the Shermans much more likely to ignite.
Any Engine that gets a shell through it is going to explode. Doesn't matter if it's Gasoline or Diesel.

[Count_Ciano]

Also too, wasn't ammo storage a factor in the Sherman's flammability issue? :confused:

I recall reading somewhere about how American tank crews switched to a "wet" ammo storage system which reduced the flammability issue considerably, since ammo detonating was such a factor in that problem.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Et Tu Cosa Fai?
And What Are YOU Doing?

[Danyel Phelps]

Also too, wasn't ammo storage a factor in the Sherman's flammability issue? :confused:

I recall reading somewhere about how American tank crews switched to a "wet" ammo storage system which reduced the flammability issue considerably, since ammo detonating was such a factor in that problem.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Et Tu Cosa Fai?
And What Are YOU Doing?
In the 1943 upgrade the Sherman tank was given higher quality RHA armor plates, slightly lesser slope to eliminate two shot traps that were located on the front hull (the two bulges) and Wet Stowage. All these helped drastically reduce the chance of ammunition cook-off.

This proves that Ammunition was the problem with the Sherman "ronson" error. If it was indeed the fuel, why didn't Tiger crews complain? What about Panzer IVs, or Panthers? They all used Gasoline. The difference is they had the armor to keep incoming shells from cutting straight through into the engine.

[GijoeNumberOne]

In "Flamethrower", Andrew Wilson (the book's author and a Churchill Crocodile commander in 1944) made this remark: "When the Churchill was hit it caught fire three times out of five, and it could take up to ten seconds for the fire to sweep through from the engine compartment to the turret. The American Sherman caught fire every time, and the flames swept through in about three seconds."

Gasoline-fueled Tanks quite commonly caught fire, and some tanks, like the original M4, tended to burn more easier then others. The best defense for this was using diesel fuel, which the Russians used almost exclusively, and which the M4 eventually incorporated. Of course, desiel can also burn, but not as readily as gas. There is a way you can see for yourself, but I will not make any suggestions due to possible backlash.

Back to the Sherman. A study of the original M4's problem was made and the hull was redesigned with larger escape hatches and a unique ammo stowage system. Call "Wet Storage" it consisted of double-walled, ammo bins filled with about 37 gallons of water; ethylene glycol to prevent freezing; and Ammudamp, a rust inhibitor. These improved ammo boxes were moved from the sponsons to the hull floor. A similar Wet storage system, filled with about 2 Gallons, was designed for the ready ammo racks in the turret. When penetrated, the water would pour out of the boxes and flood the ammo racks which proved to be of immense value and pretty much ended the "Ronson Effect". M4s with this system installed usually had a "W" added to their designation.

[Vulturedoodle]

I don't think we'll resolve the burning question (yes, pun intended) here. I think we should stick with the designer's ideas concerning it. Simpler. If someone wants to design a 1942 scenario and include the Ronson effect for the Shermans, let 'em.

My vote: we stick with the original stats, with no SAs, and cost it at 24. I'd also be content with a cost one lower or higher.

Regards,
Steve F.

[PatrickWR]

We actually already had a vote on the Sherman...it stands at 23-points, no special SAs or anything.

As an opponent of negative SAs, I'm going to campaign hard to remove "Highly Flammable" from the game altogether, as its a completely arbitrary ability that was assigned to the Carro Armato as much to bring the cost down than based on actual historical significance. As many others have stated, every gasoline-burning tank in the game should be "Highly Flammable". Let's just ax it, up the Carro's point cost, and move on.

Bottom line: it makes for a very un-fun game if my army of Shermans explode and are removed the same turn they get hit, leaving me with nothing but infantry to play the game. We're gaming with little plastic toys; let's not forget the fun factor.

[Danyel Phelps]

In "Flamethrower", Andrew Wilson (the book's author and a Churchill Crocodile commander in 1944) made this remark: "When the Churchill was hit it caught fire three times out of five, and it could take up to ten seconds for the fire to sweep through from the engine compartment to the turret. The American Sherman caught fire every time, and the flames swept through in about three seconds."

Gasoline-fueled Tanks quite commonly caught fire, and some tanks, like the original M4, tended to burn more easier then others. The best defense for this was using diesel fuel, which the Russians used almost exclusively, and which the M4 eventually incorporated. Of course, desiel can also burn, but not as readily as gas. There is a way you can see for yourself, but I will not make any suggestions due to possible backlash.

Back to the Sherman. A study of the original M4's problem was made and the hull was redesigned with larger escape hatches and a unique ammo stowage system. Call "Wet Storage" it consisted of double-walled, ammo bins filled with about 37 gallons of water; ethylene glycol to prevent freezing; and Ammudamp, a rust inhibitor. These improved ammo boxes were moved from the sponsons to the hull floor. A similar Wet storage system, filled with about 2 Gallons, was designed for the ready ammo racks in the turret. When penetrated, the water would pour out of the boxes and flood the ammo racks which proved to be of immense value and pretty much ended the "Ronson Effect". M4s with this system installed usually had a "W" added to their designation.
And the difference between the Churchill and the Sherman? About 100mm of armor plating.

I say again: Any Engine, Diesel or Gasoline, is going to ignite if a shell strikes it, period. Diesel may have a higher ignition temp than gasoline, but it does not make a difference when a shell passes through the engine. You said it yourself: The Ronson effect was just about entirely done away with when ammunition storage was improved and protection was increased.

[Joisey]

I don't think we'll resolve the burning question (yes, pun intended) here. I think we should stick with the designer's ideas concerning it. Simpler. If someone wants to design a 1942 scenario and include the Ronson effect for the Shermans, let 'em.

My vote: we stick with the original stats, with no SAs, and cost it at 24. I'd also be content with a cost one lower or higher.

Regards,
Steve F.
:D :D :D Now That's Funny!!!!!!

And I think Pat's onto the essence of what House Rules ought to be: We should have one optional rule for modelling the difference between gas and diesel fueled tanks with the appropriate SA and a standard rule that eliminates the SA on the Carro, since it's been pretty persuasively argued that it's too arbitrary and takes away from the fun factor.

We can up the cost of the Carro by a couple of points when we look at that unit.

[Richter von Manthofen]

The Carro and the Crusader BTW have theis special hindrances and they are despite them good units. I suggest let them as they are, because they are fun to play - especially against each other.

[Domhnall101]

We have voted on a base model for the sherman.
I suggest we move to a carro thread and work on the flamable issue there. I understand the arguement being made here but the hit system in this game is quite abstract. A damage counter could represent anything from a pierced hull to wounded crew.
it seems to me to be more of an amunition issue than fuel but I suspect the both were involved. However there were many variants ofthe sherman and as someone has pointed out the addition of W to this sherman would remove the highly flamable anyway.

I think at this point I feel we are in danger of over-modeling this tank for the scale of complexity in the game.